Rise Up MEN of God!
#21
(11-05-2014, 11:01 PM)Vox Clamantis Wrote:
(11-04-2014, 05:41 PM)SCG Wrote: What is considered "de-masculinizing" to men like Voris and Msgr Pope, is not just the idea that men have shirked their duties and traditional roles, it is the threatening presence of women in the sanctuary, the church office, and the tribunal. That's a lot different from saying that men just need to "man up." Quite a bit different.

But masculine psychology is a real and true thing, and it's just so that little boys have to push away from the feminine in order to become men. It's a ginormous psychological upheaval, and when things go wrong, you get homosexuality, etc. Boys naturally go through a stage of thinking or feeling that "girls have cooties" and "girls are gross" and all that because they have to in order to make that break from the all-encompassing feminine that's had them under its wraps since they were born. Mamma's body, Mamma's commands, Mamma's limits, Mamma's voice, female teachers' limits, female teachers' commands and expectations -- boys have to psychically work very hard to break out from underneath that and come to identify with the masculine.  Boys need male space and a male place in order to do that. In some cultures, the boys are taken into the jungle and undergo various rituals and hardships, and then return to the village as men. In the West, there are the priesthood, combat, and fraternal organizations that serve that cause.

Having girls in the sanctuary is actually a very serious thing, and men's and traditional women's not wanting girls there is for good cause -- one, ideally, anyway, not rooted in any hatred toward women, but rooted in a respect for the masculine and in the knowledge that men need "man space" -- something men have been pretty much totally deprived of in the West. We want priests to be Fathers, but in order to become Father, they first have to become men. And they cannot become men without having a place, a position, to do so.

I am scared of any backlashy, (truly) misogynist attitudes (as a trad who's run a trad forum for years and years, I've seen PLENTY of it!), and don't condone any sort of thinking that doesn't value the feminine and also female outliers with idiosyncratic (numbers-wise) gifts and talents and dreams -- or needs. Nothing gets me madder than one of those "he-boy rad-trad" types who talk about "men" ruling "women" (as opposed to husbands having headship over their wives -- and don't forget the verses that come just after that!), and who think that every single woman on earth must be either a wife or a religious. It's ridiculous and cruel. I see the value of women's intellects and work in all sorts of areas of Church life! But at the same time, women have to "get" men a lot better than we do and not fight to get into certain traditionally masculine spaces. The liturgy and combat are two things that women need to butt out of.

We need an amen button.
Reply
#22
divinesilence Wrote:It has less to do with men seeing women as a threat than it does with most men having a natural inclination to want to avoid conflict with women which is inevitable in a leadership position. When a man's choices are 1) fight with a woman or 2) avoid the woman he is more likely to choose the latter. It's not a matter of intimidation. It's a matter of preserving what little sanity / peace of mind a man has when the weight of the world is on our shoulders.

If a man wants to avoid conflict with a woman he’d better avoid marriage then. So what is your solution? 1) Keep women out of leadership roles? or 2) Rethink age-old discriminations? I pick the latter. But many men ARE able to adapt to new environment. The ones who can’t will have problems getting a job, keeping a job, not to mention a wife, and they will blame feminism for all their woes, while frequenting conflict-loving blogs and websites on the Internet to feed their fears. Overall they won’t do as well in society. But that’s just my opinion.
Reply
#23
Vox Wrote:But masculine psychology is a real and true thing, and it's just so that little boys have to push away from the feminine in order to become men. It's a ginormous psychological upheaval, and when things go wrong, you get homosexuality, etc. Boys naturally go through a stage of thinking or feeling that "girls have cooties" and "girls are gross" and all that because they have to in order to make that break from the all-encompassing feminine that's had them under its wraps since they were born. Mamma's body, Mamma's commands, Mamma's limits, Mamma's voice, female teachers' limits, female teachers' commands and expectations -- boys have to psychically work very hard to break out from underneath that and come to identify with the masculine.  Boys need male space and a male place in order to do that. In some cultures, the boys are taken into the jungle and undergo various rituals and hardships, and then return to the village as men. In the West, there are the priesthood, combat, and fraternal organizations that serve that cause.

I don’t have access to a computer every day and some of these threads slip way past me before I can reply. Sorry about that. I agree, boys need to unfasten the apron strings. Girls do too, but of course it’s different for a girl. She will grow up to be a mother too (probably). I definitely agree that men and women need spaces and places and rituals of their own. I think male and female qualities will develop naturally, and also will be nurtured if they have good parents/teachers.

What confuse me is when you say “boys have to work very hard to break out and become masculine/” And “in some cultures the boys are taken into the jungle and undergo various rituals and hardships, and then return to the village as men.”

Not to lump all rites of passages together, but the tribal initiation of males, in Africa for example, makes me wonder why they have to endure often emotional and psychological and physical torture, almost brainwashing, if men are so naturally inclined to be protectors and hunters and warriors? Why must they “work very hard to become masculine?” Why the drastic measures of circumcision, scarification, public humiliation, etc? 

That’s all very interesting to me. I mean, birds will kick fledglings from the nest and other animals will start to neglect their young when it’s time for them to spring out on their own.. So I understand the concept of “separation” and “incorporation.” But we humans go to extremes  I guess that’s what you have to do as we are creatures of war. A war needs warriors, and religion needs priests, and speaking of which…….

Vox Wrote:The liturgy and combat are two things that women need to butt out of.

I’d love to comment but I can’t because it would take too long. I have my own ideas about why and what for, but in the end it’s not for me to decide.
Reply
#24
(11-08-2014, 11:29 AM)SCG Wrote: If a man wants to avoid conflict with a woman he’d better avoid marriage then. So what is your solution? 1) Keep women out of leadership roles? or 2) Rethink age-old discriminations? I pick the latter. But many men ARE able to adapt to new environment. The ones who can’t will have problems getting a job, keeping a job, not to mention a wife, and they will blame feminism for all their woes, while frequenting conflict-loving blogs and websites on the Internet to feed their fears. Overall they won’t do as well in society. But that’s just my opinion.

Nice underhanded and uncharitable comment there! Maybe some women should go create their own circles instead of prying their way into men's circles, but I guess that would be too much to ask of an entitled sex. I mean its a lot easier to ride on the success of another than create some of your own.

Much of modern society is built of the broken of backs of men. You can blow dry your hair and live with a lot less fear because mostly men are sacrificing their life and health so you can do that. When you are out there braking your back the way men are, THEN AND ONLY THEN can you complain about the accommodations.

Proof in point. How many feminists do you see in the middle east? They only exist in the western world because men have fought to create an order that makes their blithering possible, though not welcome, yet the ungrateful people they are demand more without making any sacrifice of their own. The same goes with missionaries. How many women do you think are all excited to run off to areas with no running water or electricity to evangelize? Or countries with oppressive governments like China? Women under these conditions are few are far in between.

There's nothing like when a man risks his life and his supposed "helper" woman says he didn't give enough to make HER happy. Did you ever stop to think maybe men are just plain old tired of that nonsense and the reason it looks like we "exclude" women is because we need a break? Guess not b/c the only thing that matters to some is advancing the XX chromosome supremacy movement.
Reply
#25
(11-08-2014, 04:03 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote: Nice underhanded and uncharitable comment there! Maybe some women should go create their own circles instead of prying their way into men's circles, but I guess that would be too much to ask of an entitled sex. I mean its a lot easier to ride on the success of another than create some of your own.

Much of modern society is built of the broken of backs of men. You can blow dry your hair and live with a lot less fear because mostly men are sacrificing their life and health so you can do that. When you are out there braking your back the way men are, THEN AND ONLY THEN can you complain about the accommodations.

Proof in point. How many feminists do you see in the middle east? They only exist in the western world because men have fought to create an order that makes their blithering possible, though not welcome, yet the ungrateful people they are demand more without making any sacrifice of their own. The same goes with missionaries. How many women do you think are all excited to run off to areas with no running water or electricity to evangelize? Or countries with oppressive governments like China? Women under these conditions are few are far in between.

There's nothing like when a man risks his life and his supposed "helper" woman says he didn't give enough to make HER happy. Did you ever stop to think maybe men are just plain old tired of that nonsense and the reason it looks like we "exclude" women is because we need a break? Guess not b/c the only thing that matters to some is advancing the XX chromosome supremacy movement.

There've  been lots of women religious who've gone off to Third World places with no running water, etc., and put their lives in danger for the sake of the Gospel and of Charity (right now, my sister-in-law is in Honduras with her doctor-husband, my brother --  right by his side, learning nursing and whatever else she needs as she goes. They've been down there a few years now).

While I agree that men, as a group, work hard, I think women, as a group, do, too. They sometimes do different kinds of work -- and for a few things, I think it needs to be that way (liturgy, combat, etc.) -- but work is a very relative thing, in the end. If you cannot physically lift 80 pounds, then lifting 50 pounds is hard work though it might be nothing to a guy who bench-presses 300 easy.

But men tend much more often to do work that imperils their lives, that's a fact. And women, as a group, aren't appreciative of that enough (though, on the other side of things, until VERY recently, childbirth was just as life-risking -- much more so, even -- than typical physical labor, and being pregnant and giving birth is still hard work today, of the 24/7 variety. I think men need to be appreciative of that as well).

I think the main problem between the sexes today (and I emphasise that it is now I'm speaking about) is women's general lack of appreciation for what men do, the pressure men feel to be responsible for their family's well-being, the importance of men as fathers, and their doing all that while being made totally expendable, aside from their wallets, by the courts. I think the attitudes stem from the law - and that the laws need to be changed to protect men much, MUCH more than they do now.

Reply
#26
(11-08-2014, 04:03 PM)divinesilence80 Wrote:
(11-08-2014, 11:29 AM)SCG Wrote: If a man wants to avoid conflict with a woman he’d better avoid marriage then. So what is your solution? 1) Keep women out of leadership roles? or 2) Rethink age-old discriminations? I pick the latter. But many men ARE able to adapt to new environment. The ones who can’t will have problems getting a job, keeping a job, not to mention a wife, and they will blame feminism for all their woes, while frequenting conflict-loving blogs and websites on the Internet to feed their fears. Overall they won’t do as well in society. But that’s just my opinion.

Nice underhanded and uncharitable comment there! Maybe some women should go create their own circles instead of prying their way into men's circles, but I guess that would be too much to ask of an entitled sex. I mean its a lot easier to ride on the success of another than create some of your own.

Much of modern society is built of the broken of backs of men. You can blow dry your hair and live with a lot less fear because mostly men are sacrificing their life and health so you can do that. When you are out there braking your back the way men are, THEN AND ONLY THEN can you complain about the accommodations.

Proof in point. How many feminists do you see in the middle east? They only exist in the western world because men have fought to create an order that makes their blithering possible, though not welcome, yet the ungrateful people they are demand more without making any sacrifice of their own. The same goes with missionaries. How many women do you think are all excited to run off to areas with no running water or electricity to evangelize? Or countries with oppressive governments like China? Women under these conditions are few are far in between.

There's nothing like when a man risks his life and his supposed "helper" woman says he didn't give enough to make HER happy. Did you ever stop to think maybe men are just plain old tired of that nonsense and the reason it looks like we "exclude" women is because we need a break? Guess not b/c the only thing that matters to some is advancing the XX chromosome supremacy movement.




Where are you posting from?
Reply
#27
Part of it starts with the Mass.

For one, Priests need to appeal to men. Appeal to their masculinity. They need to challenge them, make them realize that we are fighting a war each and every day of our lives. That we must put on the armor of God and fight the evil one. This is not some joke or metaphor, it's the truth. Every man must take up his sword and fight. Priests must speak on the realities of hell and the consequence of sin. The struggles of sin and how even battling to remove one sin from your life can be the most difficult battle of your life... worse than anything you could ever face in the world. That only with the help of the Lord can they overcome this. This starts with a strong faith, strong prayer life, and lots of sacrifice. Men must lead their families in the faith. They must learn the faith well, live it, and teach it to their families. They say that children actually tend to follow their fathers most when it comes to religion... therefore, men have a large influence to play when it comes to the formation of their children.

Second of course is the Mass itself. The NO lacks the mystery and sacrificial nature of the TLM. Add in the fact that we see women as lectors, female servers, 90% women singing in the choir, the music has no masculine tone to it. You walk into a typical church before Mass and all you hear is people talking rather than sacred silence. Same thing after Mass. The church is not a meeting house. It is the place of God where the Blessed Sacrament is right within our view. God is among you, right before you. The lack of respect and fear of God adds to this. 

Also, saying, oh well that doesn't appeal to women then. Lies. I see plenty of very pious women at TLM. The masculine appeals to women as much as to men. Our Lord was as masculine as they come... and yet He appealed to many women. Especially in today's ultra feminized world, it's what we need..
Reply
#28
divinesilence80 Wrote:Much of modern society is built of the broken of backs of men.

More than that, almost all of civilization was built on the broken backs of men---men who were SLAVES, and peasants, and immigrants, and the Irish.

divinesilence Wrote:You can blow dry your hair and live with a lot less fear because mostly men are sacrificing their life and health so you can do that. When you are out there braking your back the way men are, THEN AND ONLY THEN can you complain about the accommodations.

It doesn’t take a broken back, or the brain of an Einstein, to start a business or to climb the ladder of success. All it takes is skill, ambition, and the opportunity to do so. Women can develop those skills. They have the ambition. All they needed was the opportunity and now they have it. Why do you begrudge them?

divinesilence Wrote:Proof in point. How many feminists do you see in the middle east?

When I write on this subject I almost always refer to the West. The Middle East, at least the Islamic world, is still living in the Old Testament. Women are still being stoned to death there. My guess is that they will revolt too, in time, and when they do they’ll fight for basic human rights.

Quote:The same goes with missionaries. How many women do you think are all excited to run off to areas with no running water or electricity to evangelize? Or countries with oppressive governments like China? Women under these conditions are few are far in between

I think you’re wrong. See Vox’s post.  I used to work at the Mission Office and there are many women, religious and laywomen, in the mission fields.
Reply
#29
I hope we don't all equate a "soft-spoken" quality with a "fag" quality. Many men who are called to the priestly vocation have a certain temperament. This is the personality and character God has given and allowed to develop in them. It takes certain sorts.

Brash, outwardly-macho men tend not to be very spiritual, but rather simple and hard-working. They act as carpenters, farmers, smiths, strong husbands, and virtuous fathers. Those with a more intellectual bent are inevitably going to be weaker in terms of a stereotypical "masculinity".

Our own associations are not necessarily universal. The Orthodox would look at what we consider to be a very manly priest who is beardless and say he looks very effeminate. Give me a soft-spoken, charitable man above a loudmouth any day. Fr. John Corapi was very "manly" in terms of outward appearance, and now he has disappeared under a wave of accusations that he was a crook.

I see a gradation of manliness in the West: "effeminate" (faggy), "neutral", and "masculine". The first category are almost obviously homosexual, and it would just be ridiculous that anyone couldn't see it. The middle category are a great majority in the priesthood. The third category form a group of men who tend to prefer marriage and sex to lonesome celibacy. That's the way it goes when you get rid of marriage for the clergy.

As someone who falls definitely in the "neutral" category, leaning toward "masculine", I have had a difficult time trying to appear more manly or male. It doesn't interest me all that much, except for the inevitable interest generated by the pressure that is put on people like me by people like Old Sarum.

Quite apart from vocation stories, there is an interesting influence that occurs when Catholic men are Men. What I've noticed, as a struggling and recovering homosexual, is the importance of having manly straight males in the Religious and Clerical life. I know several of them, and there is a sort of push-and-pull process that goes on in my psyche. When I am isolated from those men, my disordered attraction becomes more difficult to combat. When I am visiting those men regularly, then suddenly, strangely, and gradually, women seem more beautiful, more attractive, and more appealing. It is never a conscious process on my part, or a propaganda effort on their part. Simply being near confident, strong, heterosexual male-Religious and Clergy makes me "absorb" an atmosphere of manliness, if you want.

I believe this is the key. We need a balance. No-one is equal, but each one is unique. The sexes have their places. I want women out of liturgy committees for sure, and behind secretarial desks, in kitchens, and at the sewing machine. I want men at the sawing-table, in the fields, and behind the altars. I especially encourage bearded men behind the altars - though not sports-jocks or assholes. They just need to be strong. That is manifested in many ways.

The main problem I see is that the Catholic youth have swallowed the red pill of our culture. They are "independent", "individuals", and "want to be themselves". They have been encouraged in this by the many closeted gay bishops and priests who love the effeminate guitar-masses and felt banners. It's a horrible cliché, but damn it... it's all true. We need men.
Reply
#30
(11-09-2014, 12:09 PM)Heorot Wrote: I hope we don't all equate a "soft-spoken" quality with a "fag" quality. Many men who are called to the priestly vocation have a certain temperament. This is the personality and character God has given and allowed to develop in them. It takes certain sorts.

Brash, outwardly-macho men tend not to be very spiritual, but rather simple and hard-working. They act as carpenters, farmers, smiths, strong husbands, and virtuous fathers. Those with a more intellectual bent are inevitably going to be weaker in terms of a stereotypical "masculinity".

Our own associations are not necessarily universal. The Orthodox would look at what we consider to be a very manly priest who is beardless and say he looks very effeminate. Give me a soft-spoken, charitable man above a loudmouth any day. Fr. John Corapi was very "manly" in terms of outward appearance, and now he has disappeared under a wave of accusations that he was a crook.

I see a gradation of manliness in the West: "effeminate" (faggy), "neutral", and "masculine". The first category are almost obviously homosexual, and it would just be ridiculous that anyone couldn't see it. The middle category are a great majority in the priesthood. The third category form a group of men who tend to prefer marriage and sex to lonesome celibacy. That's the way it goes when you get rid of marriage for the clergy.

As someone who falls definitely in the "neutral" category, leaning toward "masculine", I have had a difficult time trying to appear more manly or male. It doesn't interest me all that much, except for the inevitable interest generated by the pressure that is put on people like me by people like Old Sarum.

Quite apart from vocation stories, there is an interesting influence that occurs when Catholic men are Men. What I've noticed, as a struggling and recovering homosexual, is the importance of having manly straight males in the Religious and Clerical life. I know several of them, and there is a sort of push-and-pull process that goes on in my psyche. When I am isolated from those men, my disordered attraction becomes more difficult to combat. When I am visiting those men regularly, then suddenly, strangely, and gradually, women seem more beautiful, more attractive, and more appealing. It is never a conscious process on my part, or a propaganda effort on their part. Simply being near confident, strong, heterosexual male-Religious and Clergy makes me "absorb" an atmosphere of manliness, if you want.

I believe this is the key. We need a balance. No-one is equal, but each one is unique. The sexes have their places. I want women out of liturgy committees for sure, and behind secretarial desks, in kitchens, and at the sewing machine. I want men at the sawing-table, in the fields, and behind the altars. I especially encourage bearded men behind the altars - though not sports-jocks or assholes. They just need to be strong. That is manifested in many ways.

The main problem I see is that the Catholic youth have swallowed the red pill of our culture. They are "independent", "individuals", and "want to be themselves". They have been encouraged in this by the many closeted gay bishops and priests who love the effeminate guitar-masses and felt banners. It's a horrible cliché, but damn it... it's all true. We need men.


Great points there Heorot. I'll only add that I too prefer bearded clergy. One of the FSSP priests around here, Father Remski, had a beard for the Holy Saturday liturgy. He looked manly and Byzantine. It was awesome. Nothing says manly like a beard. Besides, our Lord had long hair and a beard.  I'm not against the clean shaven crew cut look on a priest but it says "jock", "drill sargent" or "business executive" to me rather than spiritual father. I know it's not an issue of dogma but that's what I think.  I guess I'm kind of a scruffy low class guy so I like my priests to look the part too!
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)